London has been battered by 50mph winds that have felled trees and caused travel chaos. Powerful gusts swept across the capital as the Met Office issued a yellow "be aware" weather alert for most of the country.

A new year but the same old story. I refer, of course, to Leveson. Little information has appeared in public but a great deal is happening behind the scenes as politicians, publishers and editors strive to create a new form of press regulation.

There are meetings, and meetings about meetings. To those outside the tent — notably campaigners who demand the unexpurgated line-by-line enactment of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations — this has the whiff of a fix. In truth, how could it be otherwise? First, there is the political problem. Though the Prime Minister has said he doesn’t want to create statutory underpinning for a regulator, he is aware of the parliamentary reality.

David Cameron cannot be sure of winning a Commons vote unless there is a statutory element. So it is fair to wonder whether, having initially responded to Leveson’s report by saying it would be “crossing the Rubicon” to legislate, he has decided to build a bridge over the river after all.

He may have thought he would get away with a temporary pontoon affair because his Cabinet Office Minister, Oliver Letwin, floated the idea of a royal charter. This appeared to be a clever ruse to avoid statute but it has since transpired that legislation — a more permanent bridge — may be required.

Publishers and editors made clear their fundamental opposition to such a plan in a meeting with Letwin and Culture Secretary Maria Miller on Monday. So that impasse remains unresolved.

Similarly, it was hoped that the creation of an arbitration arm for the regulator — viewed as a necessity by some national newspaper publishers and editors in order to reduce the punitive costs of libel and privacy actions — could be achieved under what are called civil procedure rules. Again, statute may also be necessary.

Then there is the thorny matter of the recognition panel, which will oversee the regulator. Editors wonder who will head it. They are eager for someone with journalistic, or at least, newspaper industry experience, to be appointed as well. The Government may give way on this at least.

There are also disagreements within the press and periodical industries about the structure of the new regulator. I cannot see how these can be hammered out except behind closed doors. This is not sinister; it is merely expedient.

Many of the problems were aired on Monday at a five-hour meeting of editors and lawyers at the Daily Telegraph offices, chaired by Trinity Mirror legal director Paul Vickers. Described by one executive as “genuinely constructive”, it explored the overlapping differences of opinion. One major sticking point is over the creation of the arbitration arm, which would act as a court of first resort to resolve legal complaints and prevent their going to trial.

The publishers of regional and weekly newspapers, along with magazine owners, object to funding it. Unlike the nationals, they are rarely, if ever, sued and are therefore unhappy about bearing the financial burden.

They also think its introduction might give complainants the idea of using the arbitration arm to win compensation awards, rather than taking the normal complaints route. There is concern, too, over just how arbitration will work. A meeting of media lawyers yesterday pondered that problem. The details have yet to emerge.

Some publications will undoubtedly wish to stand outside the new system.

Private Eye, for example, never signed up to the Press Complaints Commission, and I suspect it will not change its mind. Editor Ian Hislop, pictured, has always been hostile to any form of regulation.

The Government needs to take on board one other overarching problem — its tight timetable for setting up the regulator. Given the legal complexities, it is surely unwise to rush things.

It would also help to take some heat out of the issue if, very soon, there could be a public statement about what is happening and why. As editors like to say, the public does have a right to know.